Marvin Bell, Complainant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 17, 2000
01985072 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 17, 2000)

01985072

11-17-2000

Marvin Bell, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Marvin Bell v. Department of the Army

01985072

November 17, 2000

.

Marvin Bell,

Complainant,

v.

Louis Caldera,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01985072

Agency No. DAY-97-AR-0171-E

Hearing No. 210-97-6434X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (African-American), national origin (African-American), sex

(male), age (over 40), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e

et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),

as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.<1> For the reasons stated herein,

the agency's FAD is affirmed.

According to the record, complainant was a Contract Specialist, GS-11,

in a Michigan facility of the agency. In Spring 1996, he applied for

three GS-12 positions which totaled seven vacancies. There were three

vacant Contract Specialist positions and four vacant Procurement Analyst

positions<2>. In July 1996, the agency informed complainant of his

non-selection for each of the seven vacancies. Believing he was a victim

of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently,

filed a complaint alleging that the agency discriminated against him

based on race (African-American), national origin (African-American),

sex (male), age (over 40), and reprisal (prior EEO activity).

At the conclusion of the complaint's investigation, complainant received

a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an

EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision, without

a hearing on six of the non-selections and after a hearing on the

remaining non-selection, finding no discrimination. The AJ concluded

that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

for its actions and that there was no evidence of pretext. The agency

issued a FAD concurring with the AJ's finding of no unlawful employment

discrimination. This appeal followed.

When a complainant relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an

agency's discriminatory intent or motive, there is a three step,

burden-shifting process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). The initial burden is on the complainant to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802. The burden then shifts to the

agency to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

challenged action. Id. If the agency is successful, the complainant

must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency is merely pretext

for its discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804.

Because the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its actions, we may proceed directly to determining whether complainant

satisfied his burden for showing pretext. Haas v. Department of Commerce,

EEOC Request No. 05970837 (July 7, 1999)(citing U.S. Postal Service

Board v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983)). Complainant may do this

in one of two ways, either directly, by showing that a discriminatory

reason more likely motivated the agency, or indirectly, by showing that

the agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Texas Dep't

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Essentially,

the fact finder must be persuaded by the complainant that the agency's

articulated reason was false and that its real reason was discrimination.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).

The agency stated that complainant was not selected for any one of the

seven vacancies because the selectees were better qualified, based

on the criteria established by each rating panel, than complainant.

Specifically, the agency stated that work experience, training,

interest in the specific field of the vacancy, interview presentation,

and a panel's familiarity with a candidate's work were all considered.

Complainant indicated that the agency's articulated reason is pretextual

as displayed by the following: two of the selectees were trained by

him; several of the selectees had a previous relationship, as either

a subordinate or a peer, to the selecting official for the applicable

vacancy; one

of the selectees had problematic work habits; and black males were

under-represented in GS-12 and higher positions in the agency<3>.

The Commission finds that complainant failed to present evidence that

more likely than not, the agency's articulated reason for its actions

were a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, after a careful review of

the record, including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's

response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this

decision, we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no discrimination based on

race, national origin, sex, age, or reprisal.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the office of federal operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The

Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after

the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. �

1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you

receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as

the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head

or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and

official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your

case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,

and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

November 17, 2000

__________________

Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply

to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the

administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2Three of the four Procurement Analyst vacancies were in the Support

Office. The fourth vacancy was in the Business Management Office.

A rating panel was convened to make the selection(s) for each office.

3The record contains statistics which fail to prove or disprove

complainant's contention of under-representation as it may pertain to

his complaint.